Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 13, 2014

NYT Editors - Liars and Hypocrites

NYT Editorial Nov 13 2014: A Response to President Xi Jinping

The Times has no intention of altering its coverage to meet the demands of any government — be it that of China, the United States or any other nation. Nor would any credible news organization.

NYT Dec 16 2005: Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
A "credible news organization"? Not.

Posted by b on November 13, 2014 at 10:19 UTC | Permalink


I would not call that lying, but rather nitpicking "demands" vs. "asked"/requests.

I would think that every non state sponsored newspaper will sometimes trade one story for greater access to another, though that might just be my cynical view of the news...

Posted by: SimonH | Nov 13 2014 11:14 utc | 1

"I would not call that lying, but rather nitpicking "demands" vs. "asked"/requests."

WTF!!! How can one view this as other than as an attempt to determine who the next US President would be. Explain, please.

Eavesdropping and the Election: An Answer on the Question of Timing

Posted by: erichwwk | Nov 13 2014 13:16 utc | 2

I recall the NYT being very reluctant early on with the Snowden disclosures for the same reasons.

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 13 2014 13:29 utc | 3

But America is Special. So the NYT gives it special news reporting.

Posted by: Northern Observer | Nov 13 2014 13:40 utc | 4

NYT: "The Times has no intention of altering its coverage to meet the demands of any government — be it that of China, the United States or any other nation."

So when Washington says: "New York Times promote this next war" they do it, but without any intention to do it.

Every word these criminals use must be examined, because the words are carefully chosen to obfuscate. We must use as much care in reading their lies as they use to concoct them. The Times did not say: We don't alter coverage to meet the demands of any government.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 13 2014 13:46 utc | 5

'War by Media'

On 14 April 2006, the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University in New York brought together John Pilger, Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk and Charles Glass for a discussion entitled 'Breaking the Silence: War, lies and empire'.

The following is a transcript of John Pilger's address
By John Pilger

06/15/06 "" --- During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. “I have to tell you,” said their spokesman, “that we were astonished to find, after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were, by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don't have that. What's the secret? How do you do it?”

And the Washington Post belongs in this group as well:

David Bradley defends Atlantic Media's exclusive 'salons'

The historical origins, THE GEORGETOWN SET


Table Talk
How the Cold War made Georgetown hot.


Posted by: erichwwk | Nov 13 2014 13:52 utc | 6

Plenty of news organisations seem quite content to block information at the request of their respective Governments, the most obvious of which springs to mind being the blackout on the abduction of Western hostages in Syria.

In 2007, the British media met with the Ministry of Defence to agree not to report the presence of Prince Harry in Afghanistan. Perhaps they've met again since then to conspire against reporting on the presence British special ops in Syria for the last 4 years. Who knows. We are told to believe only what we are told.

The idea that these organisations are independent is a figment of the imagination. But let us laugh instead at the foreign press, sorry, "mouthpiece", whether that is RT or PressTV. Oh, those stupid foreigners, so gullible to believe what they are told..

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Nov 13 2014 13:55 utc | 7

Though I suppose there's an important distinction to make between the omission of information, and the propagation of false information. Isn't there?

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Nov 13 2014 14:23 utc | 8

Every day they cover for Israel with misinfo and disinfo.The editors noses must have grown a foot when they issued this rebuttal.

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 13 2014 14:36 utc | 9

The reporters can and in some cases should be held accountable but we as observers must understand, and I have realized this over the past couple of years, that some of the msm reporters are more than likely not on board with the propaganda but are forced to pimp the bs out of survival. They would not want to be blacklisted, especially if they have families to support. Now I know there are reporters who have sacrificed the good paying job to report the truth and they should be afforded opportunities once the msm branch of the fourth estate is free to report the truth, but we must look at the issue from the inside instead of the outside. As for the blatant pre-meditated propagandists in the msm, they should turn in thier press credentials.

Posted by: really | Nov 13 2014 15:04 utc | 10

With consolidation of the media in fewer hands than ever before, "managing" the "news" has become the norm. Instead of a viable 4th estate, who's job should be to inform the public, for the most part, its become a propaganda organ for disinformation, to keep the public uninformed.
In todays world, at least here in the US, real debate about critical issues, is hard to find. Truth, even harder.

Posted by: ben | Nov 13 2014 15:50 utc | 11

i agree with most of what everyone has said except simon @1. the nyt, wapo and wsj all lie, obfuscate and stretch credibility regularly. they are all the offical stenographers for the mic and wall st too.. i guess you could say the quote was a sales pitch, but it was still a lying piece of bs.. all these major newspapers are meeting the demands of the us gov't regularly.

Posted by: james | Nov 13 2014 16:30 utc | 12

After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting.

well, gosh, it took them 25 years to get this story straight!!!

Posted by: john | Nov 13 2014 16:32 utc | 13

Russia's Favorite Weekly Political Talk Show. Fascinating! (Captions)

"The Americans even appear to be intent on telling the penguins in the artic how to live, how to vote and whether or not to discriminate against seals."

Posted by: citizen x | Nov 13 2014 17:39 utc | 14

The comments on the NYT article are interesting. Assuming the posts are genuine, the vast majority still seem to feel the NYT is still a bastion of accurate and timely reporting. How depressing.

Posted by: WG | Nov 13 2014 18:06 utc | 15

Of course, the commenters are people who think the NYT is still worth reading. A self-selected biased sample.

Posted by: lysias | Nov 13 2014 18:58 utc | 16

A credible news org?
It's only worth a Gerald Celente quote: "The NYT is toilet paper"

Posted by: slirs | Nov 13 2014 19:16 utc | 17

hypocrisy is as american as apple pie

Posted by: brian | Nov 13 2014 20:59 utc | 18

Who reads the NYTs? WAPO? Why support this type of drivel? Information media has been reduced to two NYTs employees Mark Shields and David Brooks saying the same thing on PBS and calling it a debate.

Posted by: Alberto | Nov 13 2014 21:30 utc | 19

To all rules there is an exception for the NY Times:
When the Jewish State of Israel invokes censorship. The same happened to the BBC and reporting on the I-P issue.

Posted by: Oui | Nov 13 2014 21:55 utc | 20

Great catch.

Posted by: guest77 | Nov 13 2014 23:08 utc | 21

Judith "Judy" Miller of the NYT was instrumental in provoking the Iraq War.
Her "reporting", which was dictated to her by Cheney, Scooter Libby and others inside the Dubya admin., were used as justification and evidence for the need to bmob Iraq.

The NYT is no more reputable than the Enquirer or Weekly World News.

Did you hear there's a Bat Boy on the loose?

Posted by: fast freddy | Nov 14 2014 0:22 utc | 22

This says it all -

"Last Sunday, the web site of the New York Times carried an exchange of comments between the newspaper's former executive editor and current columnist Bill Keller and Glenn Greenwald,... Keller gives no substantive response to these points, other than to cite, without explanation, “national security” as his reason for suppressing the NSA story for more than a year... Somehow, according to Keller, support for the “war on terror,” which, as he is well aware, is a catch-all pretext for military aggression abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home, does not constitute a “political” bias. Nor does an embrace of “national security”—a euphemism for the foreign and domestic agenda of American imperialism."

Posted by: GoraDiva | Nov 14 2014 0:46 utc | 23

It's interesting to me how, when I began my newspaper career early in the Reagan years, the primary means for co-opting journalists and ensure they were subservient to their corporate masters was to pay them very generously. Memories of Watergate were still fairly fresh, and the corporate powers were just beginning to perfect the system that would become the current staple of control: access journalism. By the time reporters had for the most part come to heel, the internet was supplanting the print media and as investors in newspaper companies headed for the exits, the stage was set for the next phase of the emasculation of reportage. I call it the bloodbath, where news staffs were chopped in half, making it possible to replace competent journalists with pliable dupes who'd work for cheap. They might even feel someone was doing them a huge favor. As for those experienced reporters who now found themselves out of a cushy newsroom job, can you guess what the next best thing would be? To be a PR flak, of course. Now, instead of being the adversarial press, they would do a complete role reversal and peddle the message of their masters, knowing from prior experience how best to manipulate the system. Pretty ingenious, I have to admit...

Posted by: Hugo First | Nov 14 2014 0:50 utc | 24

Dan Rather, an iconic US journalist: "Look I'm an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I'm some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of 'win' might be. Now, I can't and don't argue that that is coverage without prejudice. About that I am prejudiced." So Dan brought us through the criminal war against Vietnam and the Nixon presidency. -- from Norman Solomon's "War Made Easy" -- How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 14 2014 1:23 utc | 25

Obama wants to re-orient policy around attacking the Syrian government, removing Assad.

Posted by: Crest | Nov 14 2014 2:33 utc | 26

@ Crest #26
Obama wants to re-orient policy around attacking the Syrian government, removing Assad.

There is no basis for that statement. Let's stick to facts, if we might. That would be helpful.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 14 2014 3:34 utc | 27

@ don Bacon @ 27

Check out the link. CNN is reporting that very fact in the fist paragraph..This is nothing new, Obama tried to begin a U.S war against Syria before he was stopped, temporarily. The mercenaries he hired to do it for him have failed, predictably and now Obama is proving that democrats are incapable of ruling - after the debacle of the midterms democrats led by Obama hear the message the voters sent by not sending anything and of course, their response is - move even further to the extremist right.

Posted by: nomas | Nov 14 2014 4:31 utc | 28

meanwhile, in australia, the gestapo/police get ready to shirtfront/welcome the russian delegation

Putin welcome in china unwelcome in australia? aussies show gestapo image

its as if the country has been taken over by right wing police thugs

Posted by: brian | Nov 14 2014 11:00 utc | 30

@34 brian

That is some of the most rediculous bullcrap I have read.How are you going to ban the security of one of the most powerful leaders from carrying firearms. I don't care how safe the Aussies think their country is...things happen and heads of state should not be put at risk over a piece of paper. Again this is utter rubbish on behalf of the Ausdie government.

Posted by: really | Nov 14 2014 11:26 utc | 31

Today's NYT top story: "In Myanmar, Obama Affirms Support for Democracy."

This is exactly what the passive, uncritical reader wants to here. To believe the US is out in the world championing human rights and democracy. Forget our last half century in the middle east (this can be spun using different techniques), the tacit implication is there, so you needn't waste time reading the article. We are good, while there are bad people out there that are being dealt with.

My personal favorite aspect of these types of articles are how few sources from the country in question are actually cited. There will be a litany of sources from our state department, military, the white house, with a few US academics sprinkled in to give at an aura of liberal authority. All of them based in the US. All to tell us how things are, and should be, going half way around the world. It's all to insular.

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 14 2014 13:01 utc | 32

Russia's Putin to PM Abbott: 'Bring It On!' @G20 Summit

I love it! Recently Australia's PM Abbott declared he would "shirtfront" Putin personally when he shows up at the G20. Putin didn't come alone …

Posted by: Oui | Nov 14 2014 13:54 utc | 34

The NY Times' reputation unfortunately is just that.

The last decade-plus has seen so many egregious examples of the Grey Lady cheerleading outright administration lies. Michael Gordon in particular with his multiple and ongoing propaganda puppetry - from WMDs in Iraq, to poison gas in Syria, to MH17 and whatever else "unnamed sources in the White House/State Department/Pentagon/CIA" wish spoon fed.

There are still the occasional articles of merit, but these are fewer and fewer between.

Sad indeed that quality reporting is now the exception rather than at the rule at this institution.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 14 2014 15:23 utc | 35

Perhaps I'm going off the deep end here, but considering what Carl Bernstein wrote in the late 70's, am I a lunatic for wondering if people like Michael Gordon have other affiliations?

If that's not the case, then I suppose he is simply riding the wave of access journalism to fame and some level of fortune. It's amazing to me how self interest on the part of the government, the paper, and the individual coalesce.

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 14 2014 15:50 utc | 36

Gordon is a Zionist.That explains all.
As lysias says,the NYTs is now a loop.You can't comment unless you subscribe.And why people pay to be lied to,that's for psychiatrists.
And,not to be a pedant,as I used to do it also,ridiculous aint rediculous,thought it sounds that way.

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 14 2014 19:09 utc | 37

I guess I have to pedant myself;though,not thought.

Posted by: dahoit | Nov 14 2014 19:10 utc | 38


Lol. Thanks for the spell check.

Posted by: really | Nov 14 2014 19:16 utc | 39

@dahoit - Gordan may be a Zionist. But if so it does not explain anything at all. Stop making such blatant statements at each and every threat. If you want to spread your general hatred go elsewhere.

Posted by: b | Nov 14 2014 20:44 utc | 40

@31 Really

Abbots behavior towards Putin makes me recall what I've read about Menzies saying about Nasser, when he was playing his lapdog role during the suez crisis.

Posted by: Crest | Nov 14 2014 22:48 utc | 41

I don't think the narrative is that complicated.

In the 1970s, the New York Times made money. It could afford scruples.

Today, it doesn't.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 15 2014 0:25 utc | 42

I was thinking more of an affiliation with a three letter governmental agency.

It wasn't all that long ago that the Bush administration was outed for sending retired military generals around the TV circuit to regurgitate whatever lies about our war efforts they wanted. It should be noted that the NYT broke this story.

But, Bernstein wrote a lengthy piece in the 70's detailing the interconnectedness of the CIA and major news outlets. As most are aware, access journalism is the likely justification for people like Judy Miller and Michael Gordon, but considering all of the nasty and immoral lengths our intelligence services go to in order to influence people and events, would it be absurd to propose the agencies are either working with, or placing people, in key roles in our news organizations.

Judy Miller was purged due to the Iraq story, but Michael Gordon is still there. Why, when his presence serves as a cautionary reminder to folks like me, every time I see one of his articles, that the NYT is no different than any other news outlet. As one of my friends would say, "for what Joy?" Considering the consequences of that article, any institution trying to maintain the veneer of credibility, or even contrition, would fire that guy in a second. Unless, he cannot be fired?

Posted by: IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 15 2014 19:42 utc | 43

The comments to this entry are closed.